The Student Room Group

Is this rape?

Someone had sex with me without my consent. Is that rape?
Original post by Anonymous
Someone had sex with me without my consent. Is that rape?



The offence is created by section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

“1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.



Theres the definition. Did you tell him you did not consent?= yes.
Were the circumstances such that he could reasonably have believed you consented? If yes then its not rape. If no then it is.
... Yes
Yes :colonhash:
If you don't consent, it is rape.
Reply 5
It's rape.
Reply 6
pretty ****ing obvious
Reply 7
Yes, if you've defined your consent properly (i.e. a signed and notarised legal contract is probably too much) and told him/made it clear you did not consent.
yes it is :frown: im so sorry this happened to you, maybe if you feel comfortable enough, you should talk to someone about it? but just remember whatever you were wearing/doing/saying that evening, if you never gave explicit consent, its 100% not your fault!
Original post by Anonymous
Someone had sex with me without my consent. Is that rape?


Assuming that they put their penis in you, 999tigger has posted the legal definition for England & Wales - it's similar in the rest of the UK - but..

Original post by 999tigger
Were the circumstances such that he could reasonably have believed you consented? If yes then its not rape.


.. that's looking at it only from the legal standpoint. A reasonable belief in consent is indeed a defence to a charge of rape, but the belief may have been mistaken, for example, and the person they stuck their penis can quite rightly regard themselves as having been 'raped'.

If my original assumption was wrong, for example if this is 'why can't women be guilty of rape' trolling, then non-consensual sex is still an offence: 'assault by penetration' if anything (a finger or object for example) ended up inside your vagina or anus (maximum penalty: life) or 'sexual assault' if it didn't (maximum penalty: ten years, if you're not a child, longer if you are).
Original post by unprinted
Assuming that they put their penis in you, 999tigger has posted the legal definition for England & Wales - it's similar in the rest of the UK - but..



.. that's looking at it only from the legal standpoint. A reasonable belief in consent is indeed a defence to a charge of rape, but the belief may have been mistaken, for example, and the person they stuck their penis can quite rightly regard themselves as having been 'raped'.

If my original assumption was wrong, for example if this is 'why can't women be guilty of rape' trolling, then non-consensual sex is still an offence: 'assault by penetration' if anything (a finger or object for example) ended up inside your vagina or anus (maximum penalty: life) or 'sexual assault' if it didn't (maximum penalty: ten years, if you're not a child, longer if you are).



Cant really see your point. If they had a reasonable belief then they would be found not guilty. Non consensual sex is ofc an offence, just not rape unless it involved penile penetration.
Original post by 999tigger
Cant really see your point. If they had a reasonable belief then they would be found not guilty. Non consensual sex is ofc an offence, just not rape unless it involved penile penetration.


I said that. The bit you're missing is that a rape is still a rape even if someone isn't convicted of it.

Looking at it another way, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly were all murdered, even though no-one was convicted of their murders.
Original post by unprinted
I said that. The bit you're missing is that a rape is still a rape even if someone isn't convicted of it.

Looking at it another way, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly were all murdered, even though no-one was convicted of their murders.


Except the difference is one has been through a trial and someone was found not guilty, whereas those cases were never brought to trial.
Original post by 999tigger
Except the difference is one has been through a trial and someone was found not guilty, whereas those cases were never brought to trial.


Just because Gary Dobson and David Norris were once acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence doesn't mean that a) Stephen Lawrence wasn't murdered and b) they didn't, in fact, do it. Or was he 'not murdered' between the crime and their eventual conviction?

TL;DR: even the Daily Mail thinks you're wrong.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending